By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 12, 2007

One is a Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq and now thinks troops may need more time there. The other is a Republican who long backed the war but now doesn't.

To those who support them, Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) and James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.) are politicians of conscience. To those who don't, they could be Flip and Flop.

As two days of testimony from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker ended on Capitol Hill, both lawmakers find themselves exploited by advocates on both sides of the war debate.

"I opposed this war with everything I had. . . . I wonder how folks who voted for it sleep at night," said Baird, who announced his change of heart after an August trip to Iraq. "But I think we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people and we have a strategic interest in making this work."

His wasn't a welcome conversion for a party that has struggled and failed to pass legislation imposing time limits on the war. "I'm going to sit down with Brian Baird," Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) told the antiwar Web site http://www.spiritualprogressives.org. "I can't believe that he fell for the spin of the generals and sheiks and the Iraqi government when he was over there."

MoveOn.org, a liberal antiwar group, has targeted Baird. A television ad aired in his district features footage of Iraq anarchy and urges viewers: "Tell Brian Baird: Support Our Troops -- Bring Them Home."

"Some colleagues have just basically said, 'We disagree with you,' " said Baird, a former clinical psychologist who once counseled the sick and dying in a veterans hospital. "Others have expressed concern about the political ramifications of what I'm doing. But a number of them have said they admire my position and admire my courage for saying what I believe."

Put Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, in the "disagree" category.

"Clearly he's become kind of a poster child for the administration in this whole debate," Schakowsky said. "He has really in my view bought into this Pottery Barn theory that we have this obligation, we broke it, we fix it."

Baird embraces the Pottery Barn mantle. "You don't get to just say, 'We trashed the place but we don't want the responsibility for cleaning it up.' . . . I have yet to hear the Out of Iraq Caucus seriously address that."

Instead, he said, "We're so angry at Bush and we're so upset with this war that facts don't matter and anyone who tries to give us contrary facts we will demean, not only the facts but the person reporting them."

Walsh is a more recent convert to the bring-the-troops-home side. Yesterday, after a weekend trip to Iraq, the 10-term legislator issued a statement saying his position had "evolved."

"Despite the unquestionable short term success of the surge, Iraq remains a dangerous place that requires an Iraqi-driven long term solution," his statement said. "I am convinced that open-ended American military presence in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States."

Walsh's announcement was too new to draw much reaction from a House whose members spent most of yesterday attending Sept. 11 tributes.

"In January we were nowhere. Now we can point to positive successes," said a Republican leadership aide. "People have been waiting for an exodus among Republicans all year long and it hasn't happened."

But antiwar groups pounced. Americans United for Change launched a television commercial in Walsh's district urging him to vote to bring the troops home.

As the debate gains heat in coming days, Baird, for one, said he can take it. "I specifically did not speak with any pollsters . . . this was not filtered through [Democratic] leadership -- they might have been somewhat surprised, but I don't know if anybody's mad.

"On the other hand, it gives them a sense of immunity -- It's 'Baird did this on his own.' "

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.